Dictatorship or "Democracy"

[Bob White 20]

Apples to oranges Backpacker. This thread is asking how the BSA is structured. The other thread was specifically discussing troop operation and how it helps to teach citizenship. They are totally differetnanimals. But I think you knew that.

[evmori 11]

Bob,

The two examples cited in jkhny's post were not removed because they had opinions that were contrary to the BSA's. They were removed because they were whistle blowers. Big difference.

 

FScouter,

What a comment! And from a moderator! Does that publication also take away my right of free speech? And in case you didn't notice, Mr.White couldn't provide chapter & verse, you did.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[FScouter 24]

There is no right to "free speech" in a private organization. You can be replaced in a heartbeat by the individual or group that appointed you to your position. I'd like to think that removal rarely occurs because the parties involved ought to be able to resolve their differences and work together for betterment of Scouting.

[evmori 11]

There is no right to "free speech" in a private organization.

 

If that's the case, the Scouting is a dictatorship. In a democracy free speech is allowed. In America, free speech is allowed.

 

BSA stands for Boy Scouts of America. Free speechs is one of the tenets our country is built on. It is one of our most important rights. Being a member of the BSA doesn't take that right away.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

The United States or America is not a democracy, it is a republic. I refer you to the Pledge of Allegiance, 3rd stanza "and to the Republic for which it stands". A republic being a form of government where powers of governance are given to elected representatives.

 

Our government however acts as a democracy, where in every represzentative has a vote and the majority rules. But the United states as an entity is a republic.

 

Thanks you's go to Mrs. Martin, 4th grade Social Studies.

 

The BSA does not say you cannot have free speech nor does it hinder it. It simply says that you are not guarnteed membership in a private organization. Just as someone cannot come in your home and say anything they want about your family and expect to be allowed to stay. They are welcome to stand on the street and shout it, but their freedom of speech does not overrule your freedom of association, to choose who can be in your private home, or in the case of the BSA, their private organization. This is the specific rule of law that was cintested in the Dale vs the BSA Supreme Court ruling, which you might recall was decided in favor of the BSA.

 

Thank you Mr. Shipley 7th Grade Civics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

Never posted America was a democracy. I am fully aware what type of government we have & how it operates. What I posted was "In America, free speech is allowed."

 

Get off the comparison to one's home. Apples & oranges as you would say.

 

If I voice my opinion on the local news and it is contrary to the BSA they can't remove me! They can request I don't do that anymore but they can't remove me. If they do, they are violating my constitutional right of free speech.

 

By the way Bob & FScouter, what are your answer's the to question - dictatorship or democracy?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Bob White 20]

Since dictatorship and democracy are types of governments, and the BSA, is not it would be incorrect to use either label.

 

However if one were dead set on tagging the BSA with a type of governemntal label it would be closer to....a republic, since it uses representives to speak for the membership.

 

It cannot be a dictatorsip since there is not one person in ultimate control. it is not a democracy since every decision is not made by a majority vote of all members. So since it uses independent committees making recommendations to a representative executive board for approval it ios most closely akin to a republic.

 

So the original question is flawed. Skewed primarily by personal predjudice since its choices for response was restricted to only two of multiple available answers.

 

Would you allow a person to stand in your living room and insult your wife for as long as they wanted? Is their presence in your home protected by their first amendment rights?

 

[evmori 11]

Would you allow a person to stand in your living room and insult your wife for as long as they wanted?

No

 

Is their presence in your home protected by their first amendment rights?

 

No because their (and mine) 1st amendment rights has nothing to do with being in my house.

 

Your analogy is totally flawed. The BSA is an organization not a place. I can stand across the street from the headquarters in Irving, Tx & yell "The BSA sucks" until someone stops me. And the BSA can't toss me out! That is totally different from someone standing in my living room calling my wife names. Big difference!

 

OK. Split hairs! Then what is your answer to

 

How is the BSA run - as a dictatorship or democracy? You only have two choices!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Actually, as long as you are standing on public grounds (or your private ones) you can yell your low opinion of the BSA for as long as you like, that is your constitutionally protected right. But you are not the only one with rights. The BSA has rights too, as identified by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is called the right to association and it is the same right that allows you to socialize with whom you please. It is a protection for private organizations as well as for private citizens.

 

In Dale vs BSA the Supreme Court upheld the BSA's right to determine its membership at will. They have the right to associate with like minded individuals.

 

As a private organization that is their constitionally protected right. You do not have to be a member of the BSA to disagree with them or to stand on the street and yell your opinion. So when you do, and they revoke your membership, they have not interferred with your freedom of speech...they have excercised their right to association.

 

I suggest if you have any doubts about this you research the many internet sites on the topic of freedom of association.

 

I mistakenly called it the freedom of free association in the last post which we all know is only for psychiatrists.

 

Just because a bad question was asked I am under no obligation to give a bad answer. I will stand by what I posted.

 

Thank you though for the opportunity to reconsider my responses. People can sometimes get so caught up with just wanting to disagree with the other person they forget to just look at the quality of our own comments as well as at the validity of other's posts. Your challenge gave me the opportunity to revist the entire thread, and I am satisfied that I answered honestly and correctly based on known facts.

[FScouter 24]

Ed, after careful consideration and deliberation, I have decided that we need someone on our committee that has a more focused view of what our goals are. I can see now that I made a mistake in appointing you to this position. Therefore I must now take action and replace you in this assignment. Ed, thank you so much for your contributions, and all you have done for Scouting.

[jkhny 10]

B.S.A. itself asserts that it is a "representative democracy" and is "responsive" to the desires of its members.

 

How "responsive" is an organization that PUNISHES those holding it accountable to its own stated principles.

 

I have yet to hear ANY justification for the revocation of registrations for volunteers that have RIGHTFULLY questioned the UNTRUSTWORTHY and even ILLEGAL actions of paid professionals within their Councils.

 

When a volunteer leader says - I haven't trained any leaders for ALL of these units, what goes? and is told to "forget it"......when he presses the issue and finds out the units in question do not exist and is told "be quiet"......when he presses the issue and is told "keep it up and you'll find yourself out of Scouting......when he goes to the outside, when all he suspected is proven true yet he IS throwwn out of Scouting - while a grossly overpaid "professional" wigh a history of enrollment fraud remains in place.....how do you explain that?

 

When a leader questions why a large part of his Council's budget is being spent on offices instead of boys, that is a just and appropriate - even "ethical" question. When the person asking that question is thrown out for asking it, something is very wrong.

 

When a Scout that reports a paid professional is buying alcohol for underage counselors and is thrown out - instead fo the professional fired - something is very wrong.

 

When a 4th generation Scouter complains about the sale of assets in his once rich Council and the replacement of experienced volunteers in District and Council positions with "no-show" political selections = people never seen in the course of the followint year, something is very wrong.

 

When people FOLLOWING the rules and regulations of Scouting are removed for asking why paid staffers are NOT doing so, something is wrong.

 

This is not "gossip" or third hand information. These are readily available cases personally documented.

 

And the procedures Bob cites refer to a UNIT's ability to remove a UNIT leader - with the approval of its chartering organization.

 

In the cases noted - NOT idle "gossip" but documented quite completely and directly - leaders were removed under the "top secret" Procedures for Maintaining Standards of Membership. Ever seen a copy? I doubt it. Even though it is supposed to be B.S.A.'s manual for dealing with child abuse - the procedures to be used to protect boys from felons and pedophiles - it is "restricted". But then B.S.A.'s own Rules and Regulations and Charter and Bylaws are not accessible ONLY through Council offices.

 

B.S.A. is showing behavior far more in keeping with a dictatorship than a "representative democracy" that regularly wraps itself in "American ideals"

 

This is appalling. The convoluted justifications I have heard for clearly BAD and inexcusable behavior make me wonder if some have totally forgotten ALL that Scouting is supposed to stand for.

 

On the Fourth of July I am reading excuses made for behavior that is clearly more appropriate for Stalinist Russia than the U.S.A.

 

When scandal after scandal envelops an organization that claims to teach youth to make "moral and ethical" decisions - something is VERY wrong.

 

No organization - military, corporate or governmental should suffer incompetent amoral leadership. ONE example within B.S.A. should be too many. Those that attempt to justify such behavior are deluding only themselves.

 

It is the DUTY of an American soldier to disobey an illegal order. It is the DUTY of a Scout to hold others in Scouting to the principles stated in the Scout Law.

 

And Ed, I wouldn't try yelling "B.S.A. sucks!" in any forum where they have a shot at identifying you - or you will get thrown out... It's happened for less....

 

And Bob - a question - what do you do when your District Executive is lying about membership numbers? He's overstating enrollments by 25% over "official" numbers and almost 50% over actual current enrollments. The Scout Executive doesn't want to hear this because then he would lose a Quality District and then his Quality Council. He needs that count to meet HIS "goals." The hand-picked Executive Board claims tht they will "study" the issue but months later a "Committee" has yet to be formed and no action taken. Are we supposed to ignore all this?

[Bob White 20]

"And Bob - a question - what do you do when your District Executive is lying about membership numbers? He's overstating enrollments by 25% over "official" numbers and almost 50% over actual current enrollments. The Scout Executive doesn't want to hear this because then he would lose a Quality District and then his Quality Council. He needs that count to meet HIS "goals." The hand-picked Executive Board claims tht they will "study" the issue but months later a "Committee" has yet to be formed and no action taken. Are we supposed to ignore all this?

 

In my position as a unit leader and a Rountdable staff member I do nothing. It is not my area of responsibility, I do not have all the facts, and I am aware of the tremendous amount of misinformation and gossip spread by some volunteers who need to distract people from seeing their own shortcomings by spreading gossip or complaints about others.

 

So unless it affects my next unit meeting I let the people aho are responsible for the affedted area do their job. If I should come in contact with a memeber of the executive board as I do from time to time I will ask them for a private conversation for a few minutes, tell them of some of the concerns I have been hearing and ask him if he could explain the situtaion to me.

 

"And the procedures Bob cites refer to a UNIT's ability to remove a UNIT leader - with the approval of its chartering organization."

 

And what do you suppose gives them the ability to do that? It is because they hold the charter. Who holds the charter for the councils? The BSA. It is the same thing.

 

 

 

 

[jkhny 10]

OK let me be clearer. You just got your unit charter back and there are boys listed you haven't EVER seen - they supposedly crossed over from Cub Scouts two years ago but never went to any Troop Meetings. The are still on your roster. You've already left countless unreturned phone messages and e-mails for your DE.

 

Your Committee Chair and local Commissioner is at the District Meeting and gets a copy of a handwritten Quality Worksheet with clearly altered numbers (a variety of handwriting showing) signed off and officially distributed to attendees with numbers that are not even in the same ballpark as the numbers shown on the official District printouts showing membership for the same period - also handed out at the same meeting. Frankly, this shows a level of stupidity and incompetence that would result in the immediate termination of ANYONE that worked for me. That blatant a lie is indefensible.

 

But it's not your job so you're going to remain silent..... it's not the volunteers that are fudging things here......spreading gossip or misinformation - the DE is lying plain and simple. The SE is incompetent if not checking the numbers - or complicit in the fraud.

 

Evil thrives when good people are silent.

 

And in a far too related issue...Idaho is alot worse that reported up until now...

 

How do professionals hold onto their jobs when they've failed to properly deal with been three completely separate cases of abuse? But then if the complaining boys were only spreading gossip and misinformation... How much wrongdoing should be excused or "overlooked?"

 

And no I am not "overstating." A failure of leadership reflected in lying about numbers or failing to protect boys is different only in degree. Moral and ethical standards were ignored in both cases. How far down that slippery slope are you willing to go?

 

If those that are supposed to "handle" things are NOT doing so, you should be screaming louder and louder at each successive level until someone listens and acts. If nobody will do so inside, you go outside. And THAT is what is currently happening with all the breaking scandals in BSA. Nobody in BSA is listening. Sadly, It is only going to get worse.

 

It's all about "character" - it's really THAT simple. B.S.A. needs to start showing some and hold its paid staff accountable to the standards they demand of volunteers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob White 20]

So what if your charter comes back with the names of boys you have never seen? People make mistakes. That isn't enough to prove wrong doing by the SE, nor does it have any effect on your next scout meeting.

 

It could simply be data entry error. You inform the council registrar of the errors and move on. You are not required serve scouts who are not in your unit.

 

What is your problem in this instance? Why is every problem a conspiracy, it was most likely just a clerical error. Didn't anyone ever read you the story of Chicken Little?

 

And what the heck does a roster error have to do with the BSA being a dictatorship or a democracy? It would be helpful if you stuck to your own thread topic.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori 11]

jkhny,

I don't really think the BSA sucks. Just used that as an example.

 

If we as BSA volunteers know something is wrong it is our ethical & moral obligation to let those in charge know about it. And if it is those who are in charge that are responsible for the wrong doing, then it is our ethical & moral obligation - not just as Scouters but as human beings - to tell someone else who has the power to bring it to light. If we don't how can we be good examples to the Scouts we lead? How can we teach them to make ethical & moral decisions if we don't do it ourselves? The Catholic church tried to sweep stuff under the rug & look what happened to them. Do we want the same thing to happen to the BSA? I know I don't.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10